Ju-ply 2026 Obs and Disco - Kicking it off with heat, humidity, and ... severe?

[vortex95]

12 hours ago, powderfreak said:

What about Blue Hill and PVD?  It seems to lend credence to one ob when there are others supporting it to some extent, no?

Good point.  Yes, it does matter to an extent.  But each site is different.

The below sounds pedantic and getting into the weeds, but I have found an appreciation of the details working w/ numbers, calcuations, and statistics, their rules, and how it applies to the sciences.

We know the history of BOS wx measuring issues -- temp, precip, and snowfall.
So this is not an isolated or new issue.  And then you have the base issue of ASOS temp considered ok as long as it is within +- 2 F.

The point is marginal of error or uncertainty in measurement is rarely given in the mainstream.  Output/results are often treated as absolute fact.  This is not a good scientific practice.  For example, If a number is known to be accurate to the ones place (whole number), expressing it with a decimal (like a tenth) introduces false precision.  This implies you know the value more precisely than you actually do.  So since ASOS is only reliable within +-2 F, see the problem here?  And then you have individual site calibration issues at times independent of the sensor base accuracy. These wx sensors in the field are not high quality super precise like sensors used in a lab.

And a larger issue not directly related to precision/accuracy, artificial heat sources are becoming more of an issue w/ time, both on a local and large scale where many of these climate locations are, so biased warm is not an unreasonable assumption a lot the time.

Yes I know this complicates things, but if you are going to say that an avg temp over a long period of time is exceeded a previous record by tenths of a degree when you have issues like the above, we can't just ignore the limits of measurements and rules of what is precise/accurate.  It gets worse when you see temps calculated out to the hundredths of a degree (global avg temp, as one example)  That is two orders of magnitude above conventional sensor precision!
 

[vortex95]

11 hours ago, SnoSki14 said:

They are setting records with relatively moderate strength ridging. When/if one of those 600dm+ ridges parks over this area they will blow those margins away. 

600 dm heights/ridges can and are misleading as to heat.  It depends on many factors, like one's relative position to the ridge center/axis, overall moisture in and around the high pressure (not all high pressures are dry), mean wind direction, and how the surface pressure is set up/aligned and how strong it is, and time of year/location (land or ocean). And we do not live at 500 mb.

And what you say above, a 600 dm ridge parked right over region is not ideal for max or record heat.  Having its center located decent distance SW, S , or SE of a given location is best for an area like the East Coast.

On 9/16/1989 at 00z, the Chatham MA (CHH) souring recorded a 609 dm height.  That is record high for the Northeast, but there was no all-time record heat for Sep from that event on the East Coast.

Aug 2, 1975 when New England has it hottest temp on record.  The ridge center was to our W, and we had strong NW flow for subsidence warming.  Highest 500 heights were our W.

Many times when the ridge center is to the W, the downstream sfc high is strong and that promotes a cooler thickness column and onshore winds.

In other words, it is not one-size-fits all, and using any one parameter or level to determine sensible wx at the sfc and how extreme it will be or not is not proper meteorology.

For heat, one should be looking a lot more at the 1000-500 thickness, as that is much more correlated to temps at the sfc b/c it combines 500 heights w/ sfc pressure.  Also, 850 temps, but even that has limits.  Cloud cover?  Precip?  Lapse rates? Type of air mass?  You can't treat individual parameters in a vacuum.

[Lava Rock]

69/48. Early fall like

Sent from my SM-S921U using Tapatalk

[vortex95]

10 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Heh... looks pretty clear via the higher res vis images I looped that the convection down there fired off in the region below the axis of denser smoke. In fact, probably the training ran along the temperature gradient between N NJ where it was denser, vs where more sun/sfc heating was realized. 

Today it was DC's turn for thick smoke.  VIS at KDCA got as low as 1.25 mi and VV restriction of only 200 ft!

METAR KDCA 171252Z 00000KT 1 1/2SM FU VV020 28/17 A3007 RMK AO2 SLP183 T02780167"

CoastalWx, remind you of doing TAFs for India?  Every night, the VIS like clockwork would drops big time to 1/4 mi or less from smoke at so many airports, not from wildfires, but industrial pollution.

[vortex95]

15 hours ago, CoastalWx said:

Smoke doesn’t act like a blanket like clouds do 

If it thick enough, it does.  Put it this way on an ideal radiation cooling night, if there was a layer of thick smoke at 20,000 ft, do you really temps woild drops as low as if there was no smoke?  Yes, the SW/LWIR physics are not the same as WV clouds, but it is still a cover, so to speak.  Why did BOS only hit 90 on 7/14 when 97 was fcst?

[vortex95]

14 hours ago, CoastalWx said:

Blue Hill is probably the best metric you can use. It’s been a torch so far. 
 

I looked at BOS. It’s drifted a little warm over the last year but nothing like it did back in 2018. I’ll keep an eye on it as we head into the cold season. That year Logan would report ZR at 34.  

I agree it is not as bad as 2018, but when you talking tenths of deg when it comes to exceeding records, it does matter, and the longer the period, the more this drift is a problem when talking avg temps. 1 F bias does not sound like much for a single day, but it is big over the course of a month, and keeps increasing the longer you go.

[vortex95]

14 hours ago, dendrite said:

Maybe they’re literally on fire?

China interfering with smoke physics?

Recall during the Olympics in China, the smoke pollution was never called such?  You would get official statements like, "it is mist" or "it is getting ready to rain." 

[vortex95]

12 hours ago, kdxken said:

 

Coldest I could find outside mtn location in New England is 47 at Fox Brook ME.

[vortex95]

11 hours ago, tamarack said:

This coming Monday marks 30 years since MWN's windiest met summer day - the 24-hour average was 99 mph, IIRC.  Friends were getting married at our (then) church in South Gardiner, with an outdoor reception under a large tent, and the wind would work the 4-foot "pins" upward such that we had to monitor them while carrying sledge hammers.

Highest gust on record for the summer set in July 1996, correct?  They had PL at the time IIRC.  And I think this same storm system resulted in record flooding in Quebec.

[kdxken]

Damage in Tolland? I'll post it in DIT format.

 

 

[CoastalWx]

18 minutes ago, kdxken said:

Damage in Tolland? I'll post it in DIT format.

 

 

Model is trash

[SouthCoastMA]

FMH/MVY gonna steal my rain again

[jbenedet]

The WPC qpf output is a lot more robust for seacoast NH than model guidance consensus.

The storms developing near Rochester NY hold together and swing through this afternoon.

 

 

[rimetree]

Hope so...2.89" since June 1. Tuesday may be somewhat better at this range.

[powderfreak]

13 hours ago, vortex95 said:

Good point.  Yes, it does matter to an extent.  But each site is different.

The below sounds pedantic and getting into the weeds, but I have found an appreciation of the details working w/ numbers, calcuations, and statistics, their rules, and how it applies to the sciences.
 

Oh no, it definitely isn’t pedantic.  I know “pedantic” posters but you certainly aren’t one… always respectful with measured views.  Always appreciate the nuances and your expert opinion.  Sometimes I just lean towards devils advocate comments, ha.

[Torch Tiger]

Smoke is back!  Let's go!

[ineedsnow]

23 minutes ago, Torch Tiger said:

Smoke is back!  Let's go!

Yup starting to get bad here

[dendrite]

Not much smoke here yet

A heavy trace of rain this morning

[tamarack]

15 hours ago, vortex95 said:

Good point.  Yes, it does matter to an extent.  But each site is different.

The below sounds pedantic and getting into the weeds, but I have found an appreciation of the details working w/ numbers, calcuations, and statistics, their rules, and how it applies to the sciences.

We know the history of BOS wx measuring issues -- temp, precip, and snowfall.
So this is not an isolated or new issue.  And then you have the base issue of ASOS temp considered ok as long as it is within +- 2 F.

The point is marginal of error or uncertainty in measurement is rarely given in the mainstream.  Output/results are often treated as absolute fact.  This is not a good scientific practice.  For example, If a number is known to be accurate to the ones place (whole number), expressing it with a decimal (like a tenth) introduces false precision.  This implies you know the value more precisely than you actually do.  So since ASOS is only reliable within +-2 F, see the problem here?  And then you have individual site calibration issues at times independent of the sensor base accuracy. These wx sensors in the field are not high quality super precise like sensors used in a lab.

And a larger issue not directly related to precision/accuracy, artificial heat sources are becoming more of an issue w/ time, both on a local and large scale where many of these climate locations are, so biased warm is not an unreasonable assumption a lot the time.

Yes I know this complicates things, but if you are going to say that an avg temp over a long period of time is exceeded a previous record by tenths of a degree when you have issues like the above, we can't just ignore the limits of measurements and rules of what is precise/accurate.  It gets worse when you see temps calculated out to the hundredths of a degree (global avg temp, as one example)  That is two orders of magnitude above conventional sensor precision!
 

If the variance within that -/-2 F, once one has hundreds/thousands of observations, the averages should be valid to tenths at least.  (Unless there's a consistent bias toward either + or -.)  Works that way in forest inventory, at least.
 

Coldest I could find outside mtn location in New England is 47 at Fox Brook ME.

There's probably about 10 Fox Brooks in Maine.  My guess is the one on T17R12, immediately west from the town of Allagash.

[Damage In Tolland]

Heavy smoke today . More please 

[Torch Tiger]

56 minutes ago, ineedsnow said:

Yup starting to get bad here

bad?

[kdxken]

 

[MJO812]

Torrential downpours here with loud thunder and frequent lightning.